Saiks,

Your last correspondence was very revealing. If ever there was a need for a
denuder to the contempt in which you hold capitalism and the American
political system, that correspondence aptly fills the role. I read with keen
interest your risible attempts to pigeon-hole the recent racial riots of
Northern English towns and cities into this bizarre idea of capitalism as
system intended solely for the exploitation of the human race. This is as
risible as they come. Saiks, what is currently happening in the North of
England is not reducible to the simplistic caricature of capitalist fat cats
in their drive for ever more profits have dehumanised the North to point
where it had pitted the different communities and races against each other.
These riots are far too complex to be explained away by the simplistic
explanations that you have suggested. What is unravelling in the North of
England is not as black and white as the media continues to portray it. There
are too many social, political and economic forces at play here for us to
settle for a simplistic linear narrative of what is happening in English
Northern cities and towns. I wish i had the time to delve more into this
issue and give you a proper liberal perspective of what is happening in the
North of England.

Similarly, your attempts to correlate the global reaches of capitalism with
both current climate changes and the lack of commitment on the Kyoto treaty
by some Western countries - notably the US - is another classic leftist
demonology of the capitalist order. If i understand you correctly now, every
living hell on earth - from the AIDS epidemic to the Middle East conflict -
is a by-product of the consequences of capitalism. Not even that old
incendiary, Karl Marx, would be this outrageous! I will not even attempt to
debunk this bizarre and risible theory of yours. Meanwhile, i will just say
that my own position in the environmental debates is a sceptical one: to what
extent has left-wing scaremongering and aversion to capitalism been factored
into environmental debates and treaties like Kyoto and what has historical
antecedents got to say about where we are now and how we got here? To
understand where i'm coming from, i strongly recommend you read to a Danish
scholar and former Greenpeace member, Bjorn Lomberg's - who is not only a
socialist but also an environmental activist of clear distinction; a clear
demonstration of my open-minded approach to life, if any were ever needed -
excellent book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist". Saiks, even informed
academics, policy makers and environmental specialists are as split about
climate and environmental changes as they are about just everything. There is
no simple answer to the question: why are we experiencing the climate changes
we are currently experiencing? Nor are the solutions as simple and straight
forward as you seem to imagine. In short, whilst i'm not in principle opposed
to the Kyoto treaty, i'm sceptical about its effective-ness vis-a-vis
tempering climate and environmental changes and whether it will not in the
long run end up adversely affecting "developing countries" more than
"developed countries" in terms of proving to be economically constrictive and
eventually restricting the economic growth of the former? As the
international indignation and hysteria that greeted America's refusal to
ratify or abide by the Kyoto treaty begins to subside, credible and
alternative policy options to the Kyoto treaty are beginning to emerge out of
the woodwork and getting rather good receptions in hitherto hostile
audiences. This is one of the ways forward. What will, however, not generate
serious and effective policy debates on the environment and climate changes
is to let the debate feed on rabid anti- corporate and globalisation
frenzy.Debate on the environment and climate changes ought to be rescued from
this deplorable situation.

I was, again, dismayed to see you snort with derison at my suggestion for you
to read actual capitalist texts by capitalist writers like Cobden, Dicey,
Friedman, Hayek, Mises and Smith instead of  merely depending on left-wing
interpretations of their works in order for you to understand what
capitalists actually believe in. If your derisory remarks are anything to go
by, your low opinion of these illustrious defenders of human freedom and
classical liberal tenets expressly demonstrates another high tide of your
aversion to capitalist opinion and basic tenets. Let me make a brief
commentary on, say, Cobden's illustrious and noble campaigns for human
freedom in 19th. century England and beyond and the point would become
clearer. Cobden was, above all, a free trade classical liberal who strongly
believed that through free trade, the world would eventually be free of
prejudice, bigotry and senseless wars. An avowed pacifist, Cobden was always
up in arms against any attempts by the British gov't of Lord Palmerston to
fight any foreign wars. Invariably, his pacifism is at times at the expense
of being at the butt-end of both public ridicule, hostility and alienation.
Most importantly, Cobden was the prime mover and originator of such
progressive and pro- poor movements like the Anti Corn Law League which
successfully campaigned for an end to that economically restrictive piece of
legislation and the disastrous effects it had on the poor of the day. In the
process, Cobden was able to garner the support and admiration of such
Victorian titans like Gladstone and Peel and in extension won them over to
the cause of free trade. The most remarkable achievement of Cobden's eventful
life, however, was his resolute opposition to slavery and imperialism; and
how his noble collaborations with American abolitionists like Charles Sumner
was effective in winning political opinion in England to the side of the
abolitionists during the American civil war. Cobden, therefore, is a vintage
classical liberal activist at work. Let us contrast this with Karl Marx's
actual achievements for similar convictions. First, Marx was an incorrigible
and despicable racist and sexist creep who has for the record stated his very
low opinions of blacks and women, calling the former "a sub-human race".
Second, whilst the likes of Cobden were busy waxing indignant on the moral
wrongs of slavery and calling for its abolition, Marx was at some point
opposed to the abolition of slavery in America on the specious grounds that
it will hinder the progress of poor white Americans from their working class
status to a proletarian one without which the revolution he had predicted
will never come to be and capitalism will remain the order of the day. I
wonder whether you will still call yourself a Marxist - after someone who
opposed the abolition of slavery for sometime and held very low opinions of
blacks and women - now you know his racist and sexist convictions. Be that as
it may, i've never let this discovery of Marx's nauseating racist and sexist
bigotry stop me from reading what he ACTUALLY wrote and believed in. I
believe a similar open-minded spirit is what will help you understand where
capitalists are coming from. That was the point i was always making.

Having said all that, i think we have reached the point in this debate where
it would be far more judicious to respectfully agree to disagree and move on
to other topical issues. I don't ever think you and i will see eye to eye on
the issue of the virtues of capitalism. Saiks, i'm a strong adherent of
bourgeoisie liberties, moderation and civilisation as the only way to make
society wholesome, stable and progressive. Having said that, i'm also
cognisant of the fact that bourgeoisie political, social and economic orders
have their limits and will never ever be perfected. Whilst i make no
apologies for this position, i'm always ready to acknowledge any shortcomings
associated with such an order. As i always keep saying to anyone who would
listen to me, i have an open-mind approach to life and i'm not a determinist.
Where evidence decisively repudiates a philosophical position, i adjust
appropriately and not just according to passing fads or trendy positions; but
according to the weight of evidence. Saiks, my blood maybe very African but
like Ben Okri, my heart is very universal. My allegiances and sympathies are
simply not delineated by my African heritage. I'm an individual first and
foremost and an African second. Hence for me, ideas and values are not simply
bracketed into Asian, African, Western and Eastern values and ideas. Ideas
and values for me are ultimately universal and each idea and value ought to
be judged on their merit and not on their port of origin. As such, i wholly
repudiate the notion that ideas and value systems like liberalism and
capitalism are intrinsically Western and have no place on the African
continent. Both capitalism and liberalism are all part of that common human
genesis, development and history. Anything contrary to this, is a gross
misapprehension of the evolution of human existence. I hope i have made my
position clearer.

Finally, I look forward to your insightful and valuable contributions on
other socio-economic and political issues affecting our peoples. If anything
personally offensive to your person appeared herein or in any other
correspondence of mine to you, i apologise unreservedly.

All the best,

Hamjatta Kanteh

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
You may also send subscription requests to [log in to unmask]
if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write your full name and e-mail address.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------